Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiemichelle/Archive

Evidence submitted by TeleComNasSprVen
Alright, here goes. All three users have vested interests in and been working very hard at the articles surrounding Omega Point (Tipler), and have been using similar edit histories. Their cases have repeatedly been violations of the Three-revert rule and general disruption of the talk pages of the respective articles, as seen in the similarities here, here, and here. Their edit summaries are also similar, attacking other editors and essentially violating AGF, as well as claiming that consensus had been reached to make a particular change to an article (Jamiemichelle: Removed the illiteracies by restoring the copy-edited version, per the discussion on the Talk page., 74.4.222.208: Undid the illiterate and incompetent edits of 03:31, 13 March 2009 by Headbomb, per the agreement on the Talk page. and 71.0.146.150: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&offset=20100311124843&limit=500&target=71.0.146.150 Reverted antifactual edit by 69.230.165.230. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of leading physics journals. "Category:Pseudoscience" edit violates WP:TRUTH.]) Sorry if the formatting went wrong somehow.

They have also used similar argumentation: Jamiemichelle has protested against Ruslik here with phrases against Headbomb such as "illiterate and destructive edits", "Whereas I have an actual history of adding value to this article", and "He has issued bizzarely false statements about his edits". The ip address 74.4.222.208 had made similar arguments to Jeffro77, which can be seen further down the dispute referral page and here, using "There's nothing uncivil about pointing out the fact that your edits are illiterate and incompetent. What is uncivil is your continual reversions to your illiterate and incompetent edits: you're deleting other people's improvements to the article; of which improvements were necessary due to your illiterate and incompetent edits." Finally, ip address 71.0.146.150 attacks another ip address 58.96.94.12 by repeatedly using the word antifactual (in the edit summary) and similar wording in here, where I noted the words "Pertaining to your false and nihil ad rem claim of plagiarism, you are thereby violating Wikipedia policy regarding good faith" as well as "your inversion of my writings makes your above post antifactual". :| TelCo NaSp   Ve :|   02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

IP address 67.232.59.169 and IP address 74.4.219.197 (The evidence for these respective IP addresses are much weaker due to their lack of contributions, and hence I've decided to create a separate section for them. The above are the main parties.) In scrolling down the list of contributions here for IP address 71.0.146.150, one can find a slight connexion with IP addresses 67.232.59.169 and 74.4.219.197, who both have interests in the Template talk:Theories of gravitation, which in itself is also linked to Omega Point (Tipler). Even the article on Omega Point (Tipler) was edited by 67.232.59.169 here. Diffs show similar edit summaries here and here. Similar argumentation is found here and here. :| TelCo NaSp   Ve :|   03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins, Clerks, and all parties involved, thank you for taking the time for this deliberation. :| TelCo NaSp   Ve :|   03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
I've edited under I.P. addresses that my Internet Service Provider assigned me without my input (they appear to assign me a different one on average after circa several months), but I've always been honest about them, as my discussions on, e.g., the "Omega Point (Tipler)" Talk page make clear. To reiterate, my I.S.P. is the one responsible for me having had different I.P. addresses, not me. Moreover, my having had different I.P. addresses weren't attempts by me to get out of, e.g., being blocked, or anything else (of course, that is a logical consequence of me having no control over my I.P. addresses). If I'm blocked then I'm blocked: my I.P. address doesn't get changed to get out it. Additionally, my I.P. address doesn't get changed to make people think that there's more support for a position, or what have you, than there actually is (which, again, is a logical consequence of me having no control over my I.P. addresses). You've put a lot of work into attempting to demonstrate what I've already been perfectly honest with everyone about.

The I.P. addresses 74.4.222.208, 71.0.146.150, 67.232.59.169 and 74.4.219.197 are ones that I have had (or in the case of 71.0.146.150, one I think is the one I have now).

Your claim that I'm engaged in sockpuppetry is factually incorrect and violates the Wikipedia policy of WP:Assume Good Faith.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Reply I believe I've adhered to the principle of AGF by putting a notice on your talk page and I have triple-checked the facts (i.e. made sure that what I wrote in "quotes" was what you wrote); if I've done otherwise, then I would apologize.


 * Furthermore, why didn't you login? It is much more convenient and much less hassle if you just did that. No, it is my general impression that you are a) creating an illusion of support, and b) contributing to the same page with multiple accounts that are not well-linked on your userpage, according to Wikipedia policy. Reviewing all the contributions page, it will show that you have edited on multiple accounts in the same day such as the edits made in March 18, 2009, again to the article on Frank J. Tipler. Note that your edits span from 2007, while those of 74.4.222.208 span from December 1, 2008 to March 28, 2009, followed by 71.0.146.150 from December 24, 2009 to this day, whereby again you have made confusing edits. :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   05:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You didn't assume good faith because you could have just asked me and I would have told you, just as I've already told everyone on, e.g., the "Omega Point (Tipler)" Talk page and elsewhere. Your statement of "creating an illusion of support" is completely illogical and baseless, since (1) I've been honest about the fact that I've edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me, and (2) I have no input as to when my I.S.P. switches my I.P. address. So it's not like I've tried to trick anyone. Regarding your statement of "contributing to the same page with multiple accounts": looking at the Wikipedia policy on this, it says "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." Like I said, I've been honest about what I.P. addesses that I've had, and I've never tried to make people think that I'm a different editor.


 * Regarding your statement of me "edit[ing] on multiple accounts in the same day", what you're referring to is me having edited logged out and then edited while logged into my one and only Wikipedia account, Jamiemichelle. During that time you mention, I used my Jamiemichelle account to edit the "Frank J. Tipler" article, I think because it was made page-protected. On the Talk page for that article in discussing the edit war with Headbomb, I think I mostly posted under my I.P. address that I had at the time (74.4.222.208), and in my discussion I made it quite obvious that I was the one engaged in the edit war with Headbomb, hence making it obvious that my Jamiemichelle account is what I edit under when I'm logged in. Thus, you have here disproved your own claim of sockpuppetry against me, since I was hardly attempting to fool anyone that I, under I.P. address 74.4.222.208, was the one engaged in the edit war with Headbomb under the account Jamiemichelle.


 * Regarding your statement of "confusing edits" that I recently made on the Wikiquette Alerts page, that's because I mistakenly made that post while logged out, but since I've been mostly using my Jamiemichelle account since I requested page-protection for the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article, I figured I'd log in and sign under my Jamiemichelle account. On that Wikiquette Alerts page, I again make clear in response to another that "I've edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them." So here again you have disproved your own claim of sockpuppetry against me, since I was hardly attempting to fool anyone: in making that edit of my signature I linked up my account of Jamiemichelle; moreover, I explicity state on the page that "I've edited under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigned me without my input, but I've always been honest about them." But then, I also explicity state that on the Talk page for the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article.


 * Regarding why I usually edit under whatever I.P. address I have at the time, the reason is because that's what's been most convenient for me. I mostly use my Jamiemichelle account for edits that require me to be logged in. It's only been recently that I've been fallaciously accused of engaging in sockpuppetry, so I didn't see much use in logging in before unless I had to. But I'll edit under my Jamiemichelle account if people are going to incorrectly accuse me of sockpuppetry.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My above comments are further reinforced by my User_talk:Jamiemichelle page, wherein the Wikipedia administrators User:Peripitus and User:Ruslik0 mention the edit war with Headbomb or the discussion regarding it on the article's Talk page. So obviously my editorship under 74.4.222.208 and my Jamiemichelle account was known at the time, and the administrators never raised an issue with it because it was completely obvious that I was 74.4.222.208 and Jamiemichelle and that I wasn't attempting to trick anyone to think differently.


 * Oh, and I just found this on the Talk:Frank J. Tipler page, written by me with the I.P. address 74.4.222.208:


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above text (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]) is very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits, and your latest edits of 11 March 2009 restore these faults."


 * And in a later post by me with the same I.P. address (i.e, 74.4.222.208):


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above posts (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]; and by 74.4.222.208 on 08:43, 12 March 2009 [UTC]) are very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits."


 * So I even explicity linked up a past I.P. address that I had. So I certainly wasn't attempting to trick anyone regarding my editorship: quite the contrary, I explicity linked up an I.P. address that I had from months past. So your claims of sockpuppetry against me are completely incorrect.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to all the matters I point out in my above posts regarding my honesty, this is what WP:Signs_of_sock_puppetry says on this matter:


 * "Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred."


 * --Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply Really? Obvious? Explicitly? If it was so obvious, then how come I didn't see it? Is it because, in the time that you've had both IPs, spanning a year or two, that I've waited and waited for you to properly link them in your userspace? That would be more obvious and way clearer than simply and tangentially mentioning them in the talk page of some random article that is probably lost in the archives, and me having to sift through said archives for said reference. (And by the way, the Wikiquette alerts page has a rather large archive. If I had waited another longer, it would have been buried beneath them.) I don't see any mention, or more correctly linking, of said IP addresses in either your userpage or user talkpage. You've been honest? Show me the diffs. In addition to that, it is very strange that you've only begun to mention your other IPs recently, when you should have done so from the very beginning. And you only mentioned one IP through another IP, rather than directly through your user account Jamiemichelle. That takes a lot of good faith to assume; two years of it. Also, you calling me out on a lack of AGF in the first place commits the tu quoque fallacy.


 * Secondly, and this is more of a question, if you've had the same ip address for months on end, wouldn't you be more interested in contacting your ISP and maintain the status quo? Why would you let your IP address change? I really want to know that.


 * Finally, I know what Wikipedia policy is. To quote from the SOCK page: "Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account." :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   20:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I mention in my above 12:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC) post, I pointed out a different I.P. address that I posted with on the "Frank J. Tipler" Talk page well over a year ago. And since that time I have also been honest about my edits with I.P. addresses. I've never attempted to trick people.


 * Your comments here don't provide any evidence that I've acted deceptively. Indeed, your previous comments demonstrated that I haven't acted deceptively, as detailed in my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC) post.


 * Regarding contacting my I.S.P. in order to maintain the same I.P. address, you're really grasping at straws now. I take this as de facto admittance by you that you have no case, but that you're simply attempting to throw out any bizarre nonsense in the hope that something sticks. Get ahold of yourself already and have some self-dignity.


 * As I'll again point out, editing under different I.P. addresses isn't against Wikipedia policy. This is what WP:Signs_of_sock_puppetry says on this matter:


 * "Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred."


 * Again, I've been honest about editing under the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input. I've never attempted to make people think that there was any other editor than me in my edits.


 * Your fallacious charges against me appear to be driven by your ideology. From your user page, I see that you appear to be an antitheist:, with a section entitled "Creationism in America", which has an image with the caption of "Views on human evolution in various countries. Haha... God bless America! Land of the free! BTW, u shud see this 4 moar laffs!" According to the edit history of this page, that was added by you.


 * In the same section, you have this: "Issues (yes, it appears I have them): Talk:Existence of God", admitting that you have an "Atheism Bias", which according to the edit history was also added by you.


 * And you engaged in a tête-à-tête with User:58.96.94.12 on your own Talk page about how I'm a "nutter" (in 58.96.94.12's words) and how a name that 58.96.94.12 tried to connect with me in an attempted outing "seems to be hanging on the deep end" (your words): . You didn't therein tell 58.96.94.12 that he was violating Wikipedia policy with his personal attack against me of "nutter", and when the attempted outing matter was suppressed you said that you didn't know of the policy. It's quite interesting that when people you agree with seriously violate Wikipedia policy, you don't notice it. But when it comes to me, someone whom you believe yourself to be in ideological disagreement with, you attempt to thow out lame and bizarre claims in the hope that something sticks.


 * Thus it becomes clear what your agenda is here. As I have shown above, and indeed as you yourself have also demonstrated above (see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post for the details on how you yourself have demonstrated my honesty), I have been honest in my usage of the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input and with my one and only Wikipedia account. I haven't attempted to fool anyone, and as I've mentioned, your own posts also demonstrate my honesty (again, for that see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Reply Please, Jamiemichelle, listen to reason. Again, resorting to ad hominem attacks, including the tu quoque above my previous reply, will not help you or this investigation (comment on content, not on the contributors). I've never attempted to slander you (as is already stated in the comments that you pointed out); whatever ideology or agenda I have is not of your concern; and we're trying to discuss your sockpuppetry, not how pretty my userpage is. And I'll assume good faith by pointing out that, perhaps unintentionally, you appear to be "playing the victim", which nearly passes into paranoia, by claiming that ip address 58.96.94.12 and I are conspiring against you in some ideological rivalry.


 * If you properly responded to my question, it would have greatly helped in determining whether you are a using your ips illegally or not; instead you chose to respond with: "Regarding contacting my I.S.P. in order to maintain the same I.P. address, you're really grasping at straws now. I take this as de facto admittance by you that you have no case, but that you're simply attempting to throw out any bizarre nonsense in the hope that something sticks. Get ahold of yourself already and have some self-dignity." I say, Geez. It was just a question.


 * Like I said, you pointed out one IP address with another, which doesn't help if you don't properly link them in your main account. To demonstrate this, I have set an example by properly linking my previous IP addresses, even though they were more dynamic, directly on my user page and my user talk page.


 * And I reiterate: I know what Wikipedia policy is (to an extent). You don't have to use your on me. To quote from the SOCK page: "Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account."


 * Lastly, you used your ip addresses and your account in what seems to be an attempt to WP:OWN the Omega point (Tipler) article just after a block expired. Furthermore, the tag on your previous IP address 74.4.222.208 suggest a public account located in Embarq, SW Florida Pool, which, if I'm not mistaken, can be used for meatpuppetry, but I won't delve into that any further. I want to know one thing: are your other ip addresses also from the same area also? :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   03:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance states:


 * "If an accusation on this page is 'bad faith' (an editor making a fake case for an 'attack' or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry."


 * My pointing out that you have an obvious ideologically-driven agenda in making the fallacious claim of sockpuppetry is quite in keeping with Wikipedia policy.


 * You engaged in a tête-à-tête with User:58.96.94.12 on your own Talk page about how I'm a "nutter" (in 58.96.94.12's words) and how a name that 58.96.94.12 tried to connect with me in an attempted outing "seems to be hanging on the deep end" (your words):.


 * From your user page, I see that you appear to be an antitheist:, with a section entitled "Creationism in America", which has an image with the caption of "Views on human evolution in various countries. Haha... God bless America! Land of the free! BTW, u shud see this 4 moar laffs!" According to the edit history of this page, that was added by you.


 * In the same section, you have this: "Issues (yes, it appears I have them): Talk:Existence of God", admitting that you have an "Atheism Bias", which according to the edit history was also added by you.


 * In your tête-à-tête with 58.96.94.12, you didn't therein tell him that he was violating Wikipedia policy with his personal attack against me of "nutter", and when the attempted outing matter was suppressed you said that you didn't know of the policy. It's quite interesting that when people you agree with seriously violate Wikipedia policy, you don't notice it. But when it comes to me, someone whom you believe yourself to be in ideological disagreement with, you thow out lame and bizarre claims.


 * I've never attempted to trick anyone with my edits under my I.P. addresses, and I've been honest about them, as my discussions on, e.g., the "Frank J. Tipler" and "Omega Point (Tipler)" Talk pages, and elsewhere (such as the WP:Wikiquette Alerts page), make clear. I've been telling people about my edits under the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input long before your fallacios accusation of sockpuppetry.


 * As I have shown above (such as in my above 22:09, 24 June 2010 UTC post), and indeed as you yourself have also demonstrated above (see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post for the details on how you yourself have demonstrated my honesty), I have been honest in my usage of the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input and with my one and only Wikipedia account. I haven't attempted to fool anyone, and as I've mentioned, your own posts also demonstrate my honesty (again, for that see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even Further Reply Citing an SPI guideline does not excuse you from violations of WP:NPA. So it is not according to WP policy. Furthermore, the guideline only addresses attacks by me, to which you are supposed to defend yourself against; I have made no other claims beside your sockpuppetry, to which you made the obviously false claim that I have an antitheistic agenda. Are you going to properly address my questions and concerns, or are you simply going to get yourself blocked for repeated violations of WP:NPA? :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

General summary
For the rest of the audience, I have established, and Jamiemichelle has (obviously) told me, that he/she was using multiple alternate accounts (i.e. IP addresses). It is up to you whether those accounts were used abusively as a breach of Wikipedia policy. Hey, lighten up, I've had to find and read every single one of Jamiemichelle's posts/comments. :| TelCo NaSp   Ve :|   05:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to TeleComNasSprVen's above "General summary"
TeleComNasSprVen keeps deleting my reply to his above section which he entitled "General summary".

You haven't "established" anything that wasn't already obvious, as I've been telling people about my edits under I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input long before your fallacious accusation of sockpuppetry. Nor was there any "confession" on my part (which was the word you used before you edited your above post with the words "told me"), because I've never attempted to trick anyone with my edits under my I.P. addresses, and I've been honest about them, as my discussions on, e.g., the "Frank J. Tipler" and "Omega Point (Tipler)" Talk pages, and the WP:Wikiquette Alerts page, make clear.

From the Talk:Frank J. Tipler page, written by me well over a year ago with the I.P. address 74.4.222.208:

"Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above text (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]) is very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits, and your latest edits of 11 March 2009 restore these faults."

And in a later post by me with the same I.P. address (i.e, 74.4.222.208):

"Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above posts (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]; and by 74.4.222.208 on 08:43, 12 March 2009 [UTC]) are very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits."

So I even explicity linked up a past I.P. address that I had. So I certainly wasn't attempting to trick anyone regarding my editorship: quite the contrary, I explicity linked up an I.P. address that I had from months past. And this was in posts well over a year ago.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Reply to Jamiemichelle Your edits aren't good faith, they're edit-warring to push your agenda. Also, you have an account, that text refers to people that do not have one. You simply log out to edit-war over the topics central to your obsession and then log back in when you get caught and/or you need an account because you've gotten the article semi-protected. Your use of ips and account and switching between them is entirely strategic. As is your constant WP:GAME and random inclusion of WP:TAGs to add an appearance of credibility to baseless complaints, as you have already done in this investigation. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly called me nasty names such as "crackpot", "nutter", "nut", and "crank", while referring to Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory as "lunacy", such as on your own Talk page, and in your tête-à-tête with User:TeleComNasSprVen on his Talk page where you engaged in an attempted outing of me: . You've continued with such attacks upon me even after you have been repeatedly told by administrators not to enage in personal attacks.


 * Regarding your obviously malicious charge against me, motivated by what you believe to be your ideological disagreement with me (as demonstrated by your repeated nasty name-calling against me): I've been honest about editing under the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input. I've never attempted to make people think that there was any other editor than me in my edits. I usually edit logged out, and hence edit under whatever I.P. address my I.S.P. assigns me without my input, but obviously if I request page-protection and a page gets protected, then I edit under my one and only Wikipedia account, Jamiemichelle. But I've never attempted to make anyone think that my edits are coming from different people. As I show above, I've been honest about my edits under the I.P. addresses that I've had and my Wikipedia account.


 * You yourself have proved that I'm honest, as you state here that "several other ips that I *know* are JamieMichelle/ (he has said so in the past including on 1]]."


 * So you yourself have stated that I've been honest about my usage of the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input, and that in a post by you wherein you call me a "nutter" even after you had been told by an administrator not to engage in personal attacks, and in that same post by you, you engaged in an attempted outing of me which was suppressed. So in your own vitriolic post by you against me, you therein disproved your own claim of sockpuppetry against me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Such "honesty" seems only to apply once the sock-puppetry is revealed, being honest when busted isn't very honest at all actually. There are quite a few disputes involving the various IPs listed above but the user never reveals their sock-puppets during these disputes and masquerades as an innocent new user demanding assumptions of good faith despite evidence to the contrary and wikilawyering the whole time. Here and here are example of disputes attached to the sock-puppets that are so far identified, in neither of those disputes does the user admit to actually having an account despite it being suggested that they create one. It seems reasonable to suppose that the use of (dynamic) ips here is an attempt to exploit other people's assumption of good faith, a tactic that we see repeatedly as the user insists on being credited with undeserved good faith to deflect criticism and justified accusations. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As my above posts demonstrate, and as you yourself demonstrate in a post by you wherein you attacked me by calling me a "nutter" even after you had been told by an administrator not to engage in personal attacks, and also wherein you engaged in an attempted outing of me, I've been honest about editing under the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input. I've never attempted to make people think that there was any other editor than me in my edits. The links you provide don't involve any sockpuppetry by me, and so are irrelevant to this discussion. Regarding the second link you provide, that is a discussion that I wasn't even informed about (i.e., this is the first time that I've seen it), so it would be logically impossible for me to "admit" to anything therein. But none of the discussants therein accused me of sockpuppetry, and indeed it was quite obvious to them that my I.P. address occationally changes (again, without my input), as I have never attempted to make people think that I am a different editor than I am.


 * You yourself have proved that I'm honest, as you state here that "several other ips that I *know* are JamieMichelle/ (he has said so in the past including on 1]]."


 * So you yourself have stated that I've been honest about my usage of the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input, and that in a post by you wherein you call me a "nutter" even after you had been told by an administrator not to engage in personal attacks, and in that same post by you, you engaged in an attempted outing of me which was suppressed. So in your own vitriolic post by you against me, you therein disproved your own claim of sockpuppetry against me.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: my belief is that Jamie Michelle has edited while signed out and has acknowledged this. I don't believe there was any intention to deceive or mislead other editors. Personally, I'd prefer it if everyone edited only while signed in (it makes following threads much easier, etc) but I don't believe this is a case of sock puppetry. As alluded to above, there are issues with Omega Point (Tipler), but those issues are better dealt with at other venues. (Ultimately, I believe the best solution will be more editors). TFOWR 09:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you realise that that diff is from only two days ago? The dynamic IP edits involved in disputes and alerts date extend back a couple of years and there aren't any admissions or acknowledgement in those cases except after it has been discovered.  I linked some of these cases above. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Talk:Frank J. Tipler page, written by me well over a year ago with the I.P. address 74.4.222.208:


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above text (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]) is very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits, and your latest edits of 11 March 2009 restore these faults."


 * And in a later post by me with the same I.P. address (i.e, 74.4.222.208):


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above posts (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]; and by 74.4.222.208 on 08:43, 12 March 2009 [UTC]) are very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits."


 * So I even explicity linked up a past I.P. address that I had. So I certainly wasn't attempting to trick anyone regarding my editorship: quite the contrary, I explicity linked up an I.P. address that I had from months past. And this was in posts well over a year ago.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * TFOWR, this investigation began 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC) ; Jamiemichelle commented in it on 04:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) ; and the post you mentioned was 15:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) . No offense, but it would look like Jamiemichelle was trying to duck the investigation, though it was perhaps unintentioned. However, I respect your decision to support Jamiemichelle.  :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Talk:Frank J. Tipler page, written by me well over a year ago with the I.P. address 74.4.222.208:


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above text (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]) is very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits, and your latest edits of 11 March 2009 restore these faults."


 * And in a later post by me with the same I.P. address (i.e, 74.4.222.208):


 * "Hi, Headbomb. Your above response commits the fallacy of bare assertion. My above posts (i.e., by 74.4.214.199 on 05:21, 29 November 2008 [UTC]; and by 74.4.222.208 on 08:43, 12 March 2009 [UTC]) are very specific in listing just some of the serious faults with your edits."


 * So I even explicity linked up a past I.P. address that I had. So I certainly wasn't attempting to trick anyone regarding my editorship: quite the contrary, I explicity linked up an I.P. address that I had from months past. And this was in posts well over a year ago.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, Jamiemichelle, stop with the copying and pasting. It is, rather ironically, a form of the bare assertion fallacy, and if you've bothered to read my comments above, you'd realize that I already told you that linking one IP address with another isn't enough: you've got to link them with your main account, since they're so static. And how does your comment refute the points I've made to TFOWR about you ducking the investigation in any way? :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   01:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You apparently don't understand what the bare assertion fallacy is, because you falsely attribute it to me in a bare assertion by you. My above post cites where I've told people in posts by me well over a year ago about a previous I.P. address that I had, thereby disproving your fallacious claim of sockpuppetry. Such usage of citations is called the Scholarly Method, which is the opposite of the bare assertion fallacy.


 * I've never attempted to trick anyone with my edits under my I.P. addresses, and I've been honest about them, as my discussions on, e.g., the "Frank J. Tipler" and "Omega Point (Tipler)" Talk pages, and elsewhere (such as the WP:Wikiquette Alerts page), make clear. I've been telling people about my edits under the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input long before your fallacios accusation of sockpuppetry.


 * As I have shown above (such as in my above 22:09, 24 June 2010 UTC post), and indeed as you yourself have also demonstrated above (see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post for the details on how you yourself have demonstrated my honesty), I have been honest in my usage of the I.P. addresses that my I.S.P. assigns me without my input and with my one and only Wikipedia account. I haven't attempted to fool anyone, and as I've mentioned, your own posts also demonstrate my honesty (again, for that see my above 06:44, 21 June 2010 UTC post).--Jamie Michelle (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter. I don't give a hoot. I'm just wondering when you're going to appropriately respond to the points I've made to TFOWR about the comment you just made in the diff that he's provided (which you've again failed to do in your comments which I'll probably take as a concession that you simply can't refute my comments). :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   03:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jamiemichelle has admitted using those IPs, so is there really anything else that has to be done here? And per user TFOWR, I dont see any intention to decisive. 3 of those IPs have not edited in the past year (as IPs tend to change), so there really isn't an abuse of multiple ip addresses. I just see it as someone forgetting to log in. wiooiw (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that there is still the matter of WP:Sockpuppet that I mentioned above. But thanks for joining us wiooiw. Oh, BTW, you might want to comment in the above box Comments by other users instead. :| TelCo  NaSp   Ve :|   02:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved the section down here. wiooiw (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see two problems there, one is that several of those IPs were involved in various disputes and alerts without the people involved having any idea that this was an ongoing behaviour rather than an isolated incident involving one non-registered user as appearances suggested. The second problem is that JamieMichelle did nothing to disabuse them of this notion, Jamie has only admitted to the sock-puppetry after having been busted on it. which isn't being honest at all. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just from looking at the edit summaries, It is pretty obvious it is the same person. JamieMichelle has admitted using those IPs. There is nothing wrong with editing logged out. Per my previous statement, IP addresses tend to change, and for the most part, that is out of his/her control. Is there anything that specifically shows JamieMichelle has been editing deceptively, such as voting twice, did you ask if the ip addresses were his/hers and was denied? If not, I just see this as a case of somebody who forgets to log in. wiooiw (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No progress being made, suggest closing, after making it clear to jamiemichelle to try and edit as that username alone? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

23 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Jamiemichelle has been topic banned from Frank J. Tipler. Here Jamiemichelle leaves a comment while signed in as 71.49.118.8 and then signs it as Jamiemichelle . This shows that Jamiemichelle and 71.49.118.8 are one and the same.

Here the ip 71.49.118.8 performs a revert on edits on the subject Jamiemichelle is topic banned on. I note also a previous case investigation in the archive. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I am pursuing this in ANI/Incidents as I originally presumed the editor was trying to edit to circumvent a topic ban but he is now openly editing and circumventing the ban. (I am unsure on how to close this filing). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Um, no, I'm not a sockpuppet. This is just more harassment of me by RWolfie-. Again, I often post without logging in. I clear the cache of my browser every time it shuts down, and so I have to actively log-in in order for my edit to appear under my log-in name. Often times I'll just hit the edit tab and then edit. It has nothing to do with attempting to appear to be someone I'm not.

But then, that's already obvious, since IRWolfie- had no doubt as to who I am (i.e., my posting identity on Wikipedia, as obviously IRWolfie- doesn't know me as a person, else he wouldn't be harassing me in this manner).

You can see from my identity page on Wikipedia that I also post there by just hitting the edit tab, so obviously I'm not attempting to fool anyone.--71.49.118.8 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Then why edit a page you are topic banned in while not logged in? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Closing. Both Jamiemichelle and the IP are blocked. Elockid  ( Talk ) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)